Veterinary Dermatology 2005, 16, 324 329

Rush allergen specific immunotherapy protocol in feline atopic

dermatitis: a pilot study of four cats

Blackwell Publishing, Ltd.

ANN M. TRIMMER, CRAIG E. GRIFFIN, MONA J. BOORD, WAYNE S.

ROSENKRANTZ
Animal Dermatology Clinic, San Diego, California, USA
(Received 7 January 2005; accepted 25 May 2005)

Abstract Rush immunotherapy has been shown to be as safe as conventional immunotherapy in canine atopic
patients. Rush immunotherapy has not been reported in the feline atopic patient. The purpose of this pilot study
was to determine a safe protocol for rush immunotherapy in feline atopic patients. Four atopic cats diagnosed
by history, physical examination and exclusion of appropriate differential diagnoses were included in the study.
Allergens were identified via liquid phase immunoenzymatic testing (VARL: Veterinary Allergy Reference Labs,
Pasadena, CA). Cats were premedicated with 1.5 mg triamcinolone orally 24 and 2 h prior to first injection and
10 mg hydroxyzine PO 24, 12 and 2 h prior to first injection. An intravenous catheter was placed prior to first
injection. Allergen extracts (Greer Laboratories, Lenoir, North Carolina) were all administered subcutaneously
at increasing protein nitrogen units (pnu) every 30 minutes for 5 h to maintenance dose of 15,000 pnus ml-1. Vital
signs were assessed every 15 minutes. Two cats developed mild pruritus and the subsequent injection was delayed
30 minutes. No changes in either cats vital signs were noted, nor was there any further pruritus. All four cats
successfully completed rush immunotherapy. Two cats developed a dermal swelling on the dorsal neck one week
later. In these four cats, this protocol appeared to be a safe regimen to reach maintenance therapy. A larger sample
of feline patients is needed to determine the incidence of adverse reactions and to follow the success of ASIT based
upon this method of induction.

I NTRO D U CT I ON
Feline dermatitis that responded to hyposensitization
and was thus characterized as atopic dermatitis was
first reported in 1982.1,2 Clinical signs of feline atopic
dermatitis include evidence of self trauma, noninflammatory alopecia, miliary dermatitis, otitis, and eosinophilic granulomas. Although many of these lesions
are secondary to pruritus, some owners do not recognize that their cat is pruritic. The diagnosis of feline
atopic dermatitis is based upon clinical history, physical examination and the exclusion of other diseases
including flea related disease, food adverse reactions,
dermatophytosis and other ectoparasites.13 Specific
allergy testing may be performed via intradermal
skin (IDST) or serum IgE testing.35 Allergy testing
cannot confirm a diagnosis of atopic dermatitis; it
merely identifies specific potential allergens to include
in immunotherapy.
Allergen specific immunotherapy (ASIT) has been
shown to be beneficial as a treatment for feline atopic
dermatitis.15 Conventional ASIT requires a prolonged
traditional induction period. While rush allergen specific immunotherapy (RIT) is a technique of advancing
an allergic patient to a maintenance dose of an extract
over a shorter period of time than that required for
the traditional induction period.68 An effective and
Correspondence: A. M. Trimmer, Animal Dermatology Clinic,
San Diego, California, USA. E-mail: amtrimmer@aol.com
324

safe RIT protocol has been reported for canines and

humans.68 Additionally, in one blinded study comparing conventional ASIT and RIT in the canine, RIT was
associated with a higher success rate than conventional
ASIT.8 However, RIT has not been reported in the
feline atopic patient.
Traditional ASIT, although effective, is associated
with multiple potential impediments. Successful completion of the prolonged induction period requires
both client and patient compliance.9 Clients may give
up during the induction period due to frustration and
cats may object to the injections when they are more
frequent. Although the true impact of missed injections
on the overall success rate of ASIT is unknown, missed
injections may increase the failure rate and the incidence of adverse reactions. Multiple errors in the frequency and volume of shot administration may occur
during the induction period due to client confusion.
Additionally, some clients may be physically unable to
administer the injections to their pets and may require
help from their veterinarian or friend. Avoiding the
induction period and proceeding directly to a consistent maintenance period would avoid or lessen all of the
above mentioned obstacles.
In both humans and canines, RIT is associated
with a low incidence of adverse reactions. Adverse
reactions reported include localized injection site reactions, localized or generalized pruritus and anaphylaxis. Premedication of both human and canine patients
further decreases the incidence of adverse reactions.6 8
2005 European Society of Veterinary Dermatology

Feline RIT protocol: a pilot study

325

Table 1. Patient signalment and presenting clinical signs

Cat

Age (year)

Breed

Gender

Pruritus score (+)

Clinical lesions

1
2
3
4

8
2
1.5
3

DSH
DSH
DSH
DSH

FS
FS
MN
FS

10
4
7
10

Barbered alopecia, crusted milia

Barbered alopecia
Barbered alopecia, crusted milia
Alopecia, erythroderma, crusted
milia

FS, female spayed; MN, male neutered; DSH, Domestic Short Hair. Pruritus score is based on asking the client to assign a numerical value to
their cats level of pruritus based on a scale of 0 10, with 10 representing continuous pruritus and 0 representing a comfortable state.

Table 2. Breakdown of allergens by groups included in treatment sets

Cat

Trees

Weeds

1
2
3
4

3
2
3
3

6
5
2
5

Grasses

Epithelia

Insects

1
1
1

Moulds

House dust
mites

10
11
6
11

The purpose of this pilot study was to develop and

evaluate the safety of a RIT protocol for feline atopic
patients.

M ATERIAL S A ND ME T HODS
Felines
The study included four atopic felines (Table 1). Atopic
dermatitis was diagnosed on the basis of patient history, clinical examination and exclusion of differential
diagnoses such as flea reactions, food adverse reactions, dermatophytosis or external parasites. All four
cats had a history of non-seasonal pruritus with duration of greater than 1 year. Pruritus had not improved
with flea control, treatment with selamectin or, when
appropriate, systemic antibiotic therapy. None of the
cats were on any medications prior to onset of pruritus
except for topical flea preventative products and all four
cats completed a food trial with a novel protein diet
(duration 6 weeks) prior to entering the study. Owners
were given the option to begin conventional ASIT or
RIT. Owners were informed as to the experimental
nature of the protocol, potential reactions and unknown
impact of RIT on effectiveness of ASIT in the cat.

Allergen extracts
Allergen specific IgE antibodies were identified via liquid
phase immunoenzymatic testing (VARL: Veterinary
Allergy Reference Laboratories, Pasadena, CA, USA).
Individual allergens selected for immunotherapy had
positive test results (defined as a score of 2 on the
VARL test) and were chosen based upon history and
environment for each feline patient (Table 2). All
immunotherapy extracts were prepared in house with
allergen extracts obtained from Greer Laboratories
(Lenoir, NC, USA). The first six injections administered
utilized antigens at a concentration range of 1500
2000 protein nitrogen units (PNU) mL1. The last five

Total no.
allergens
in treatment set

Table 3. Specific breakdown of rush allergen specific

immunotherapy protocol used
Injection

Time (min)

Dose (PNU)

Volume (mL)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
270
300

150
300
600
900
1200
1500
1500
3000
4500
6000
7500

0.1
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5

Dotted line indicates transition from the 1500 PNU mL1 vial to the
15 000 PNU mL1 vial.

injections utilized the maintenance concentration of

approximately 15 00020 000 PNU mL1.

RIT protocol
Each feline patient was premedicated with 1.5 mg
triamcinolone (dose range of 0.110.19 mg kg1) per
os 24 and 2 h prior to the first injection and 10 mg
hydroxyzine (dose range of 0.741.2 mg kg1) orally
24, 12 and 2 h prior to the first injection. An intravenous catheter was placed prior to the first injection and
flushed with heparinized saline every 4 h. All allergen
extracts (Table 3) were administered subcutaneously
(SQ) in the dorsal neck area at increasing PNUs every
30 min for 5 h to an average maintenance of 7500 PNU
mL1 (0.5 mLs of 15 00020 000 PNU mL1 vial). Vital
signs (temperature, pulse and respiratory rate) and
pruritus were assessed prior to the first injection and
every 15 min thereafter. Additionally, the patients were
monitored closely for signs of localized reactions at the
injection site, angioedema or urticaria. Alterations of
any variable were evaluated and, if deemed significant,
the next injection was delayed by 30 min. At that time

2005 European Society of Veterinary Dermatology, Veterinary Dermatology, 16, 324329

326

A. M. Trimmer et al.

the patient was re-assessed and if vital signs and pruritus had returned to previous levels, the injection was
administered. Each feline patient was monitored in
the hospital for at least 2 h after the final injection. A
veterinarian or veterinary technician was present at
all times. Owners were instructed at discharge to begin
administering an average maintenance dose of 7500
PNU (0.5 mL of 15 00020 000 PNU mL1 vial) SQ once
every 7 days.

R ESU LTS
All four cats successfully completed the protocol attaining an average maintenance dose of 7500 PNU (0.5 mL
of the 15 00020 000 PNU mL1). Although none of
the cats experienced any fluctuation in their vital signs,
two out of the four cats displayed an increase in grooming behaviour and this was interpreted as a mild
increase in pruritus. A reaction in cat #3 was noted following the injection of 900 PNU (fourth injection) and
the reaction in cat #4 was noted after the injection at
1500 PNU (sixth injection). The following injection
was delayed by 30 min in each cat. No further reactions
were observed and each cat returned to the standard
protocol of receiving an injection every 30 min. Neither
cat reacted to any of the subsequent injections. No other
adverse reactions during RIT were noted.
One week following RIT two cats (cat #2 and #3) developed a firm, dermal, alopecic nodule measuring 1 cm
in diameter on their dorsal necks. The owners would not
consent to a biopsy. Fine-needle aspiration revealed
multiple inflammatory cells but no organisms were seen.
Aerobic and anaerobic cultures of both the allergen solution
and aspirate were performed. Neither culture yielded
organism growth. Tacrolimus was applied topically to the
nodules once daily and both resolved within 3 weeks.

D ISCU SSIO N
All four cats successfully completed the RIT protocol.
However, this was a pilot study that was designed to
establish the basis for a RIT protocol in feline atopic
patients only and further studies are needed to evaluate
the true safety of RIT in the feline patient. Two out of
the four cats displayed a mild increase in grooming
behaviour, which was interpreted as a mild increase in
pruritus. However, whether or not this reaction was a
result of RIT is questionable. Although delayed injection site reactions occurred in two cats 1 week after
completing the protocol we suspect that this reaction
may have been avoided by altering the injection locations in the fourth cat.
Allergen specific immunotherapy is a safe and effective therapy for feline atopic dermatitis. It has reported
success rates as high as 70%.15 Owner compliance is a
significant factor in the successful management of
feline atopic dermatitis and use of ASIT. At this time
the study of RIT as a method for treating atopic felines

is limited. However, RIT in the feline patient minimizes

the owners burden and may result in improved compliance. In this study all four cats successfully completed
rush immunotherapy with no significant complications. As in the canine patient, the application of RIT
may increase the long-term success rate of ASIT in the
feline atopic patient. However, this was not evaluated
in this initial pilot study.
Successful RIT protocols have been reported for
both human and canine atopic patients.68 In all previously reported protocols, human patients have been
premedicated with a myriad of medications including
glucocorticoids, antihistamines and leukotriene inhibitors.6 With the exception of leukotriene inhibitors, similar
medications have been utilized in canine premedication
protocols.7,8 In this pilot study, the owners administered both a glucocorticoid and antihistamine to each
cat beginning 24 h prior to the first RIT injection.
Although two of the four cats in the study experienced a mild increase in grooming behaviour, their vital
signs did not fluctuate. Moreover, both cats exhibited
this behaviour at low concentrations of the allergy
serum. Thus, it is unclear whether this change in behaviour can be attributed to the RIT injections. Alternatively, it may have been an unrelated symptom of active
atopic disease. The abnormal grooming behaviour
resolved without the aid of further medication and both
cats completed the protocol without exhibiting any
further evidence of pruritus. Nevertheless, these data
do not indicate that no reaction took place. Increases
in pruritus have been reported by owners of feline and
canine patients undergoing traditional ASIT at low serum
concentrations, and pruritus has been reported in humans
during RIT at similarly low serum concentrations.1,6
The localized injection site reactions that developed
in the second and third feline patients may be a consequence of RIT. Localized reactions have not been reported
in canines; however, the localized reactions in this study
are similar to those reported in human patients.2,6
Arthus type III reactions have been reported in human
patients after injections of allergy serum, vaccines,
insulin and multiple other injectable medications. Arthus
type III reactions are characterized by the formation of
a nodule at the injection site 6 to 8 h following the
injection and persist for at least 48 h. On cytology and
histopathology these are characterized as granulomatous reactions due to the preponderance of macrophages viewed.10 Although the nodules were not noted
until 1 week after RIT, cytological and clinical findings
suggested that the nodules were injection site reactions
similar to those documented in human patients, and
were treated accordingly. The owners refusal to allow
biopsies to be performed prevented histopathological
confirmation. As the owners did not administer an
injection for 1 week following RIT it is possible that
the nodules were present and went unnoticed by the
owners as the cats were asymptomatic.
The mildly fractious nature of these two cats required
them to be restrained by the nape of the dorsal neck
each time an injection was administered. Thus, the

2005 European Society of Veterinary Dermatology, Veterinary Dermatology, 16, 324 329

Feline RIT protocol: a pilot study

injections were clustered in one centralized area in both
of these cats possibly creating more severe localized
inflammation. The injections in the fourth cat were
more widely distributed in the dorsal neck area in an
attempt to avoid further recurrence. Previous canine
studies have shown that administering allergen injections intradermally may cause a localized reaction and
an accidentally administered intradermal injection may
have caused the dermal nodules in these cats as well.
The diagnosis of feline atopic dermatitis is based
upon clinical history, physical examination and the
exclusion of other diseases. Atopy is a rule out diagnosis and often the clinical history provided by the owner
may be misleading. It is important that the clinician
rule out other differentials through complete patient
evaluations and appropriate diagnostic testing. Skin
scrapings, cytology, fungal cultures, biopsies and elimination diets should be considered in many cases to rule
out major differentials. Specific allergy testing may be
performed via intradermal skin (IDST) or serum IgE
testing.1 4,11 However, allergy testing cannot confirm a
diagnosis of atopic dermatitis; it merely identifies allergens to include in immunotherapy.
In the feline, IDST is associated with multiple
impediments and even some controversy. Intradermal
skin testing in the feline is often difficult to interpret
and for the novice to perform.11,12 Additionally, there
is disagreement as to the concentration at which allergens should be tested in the cat.13 Gilbert and Halliwell
demonstrated that antisera specific for feline IgE could
detect IgE in the sera of cats in which allergen specific
IgE to Dermatophagoides farinae was induced experimentally under controlled conditions. All cats underwent both ELISA and IDST. An IgE response was seen
in all cats and in some instances IgE antibodies were
detected prior to the development of a positive skin test
reaction. In this report it appears ELISA is a sensitive,
specific and reliable method to detect allergen specific
IgE in cats.14 A direct comparison between IDST and
serum allergy testing was performed on 22 allergic cats
and seven normal cats. None of the seven normal cats
exhibited positive reactions to either IDST or serum
allergy testing. In contrast, the study showed that when
the positive results for each allergic cat were compared
the tests showed good agreement.15
Although serum IgE testing is associated with some
false positive results it is easier on both the patient and
clinician to perform. A questionnaire-based review of
felines who underwent radioallergosorbent testing and
then were treated with ASIT based upon this testing
method indicated that serum IgE testing has value in the
cat.5 Additionally, a small unpublished study was performed in cats by one of the authors to assess VARL
testing. This is the type of liquid phase immunoenzymatic testing used in this study and previously validated
in humans.16 Blinded blood samples were submitted
for VARL testing from eight normal cats and 10 atopic
cats. Additionally the normal cats were subjected to IDST
for house dust mite and flea antigen. Only one of the eight
normal cats had a positive reaction on the VARL. None

327

of the normal cats reacted to the intradermal injection

of house dust mite antigen and only one reaction was
noted with the flea antigen injections. Five of the 10
atopic cats had positive scores based on VARL testing.12,17
VARL testing provides a reliable and straightforward
means of allergy testing in the feline atopic patient.
In these four cats, this RIT protocol appeared to be
a safe and effective regimen to reach maintenance
therapy. Although the patients in the pilot study experienced relatively few reactions, RIT is not without risk
and the clinician must be certain of his/her diagnosis
and fully educate the client as to the potential risks
associated with RIT before subjecting a feline patient
to this route of therapy. The pilot study design did not
include a control group of normal cats. The sole
purpose of the pilot study was to establish the reaction
patterns of RIT in atopic cats. A larger sample of feline
patients is necessary to determine the incidence of
adverse reactions and to follow the success of ASIT
based upon this method of induction.

AC K N OW L E D G E M E N T S
The authors would like to thank Maria Brinson for all
of her technical support and organization.

R E FE R E N C E S
1. Scott DW, Miller WH Jr, Griffin CE. Skin immune
system and allergic skin diseases. In: Scott DW, Miller
WH Jr, Griffin CE eds. Muller and Kirks Small Animal
Dermatology, 6th edn. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders,
2001: 6018.
2. Reedy LM, Miller WH Jr, Willemse T. Immunotherapy.
In: Reedy LM ed. Allergic Skin Diseases of Dogs and
Cats. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1997: 11644.
3. Roosje PJ, Thepen T, Rutten VPMG et al. Feline atopic
dermatitis: a review. In: Thoday KL, Foil CS, Bond R
eds. Advances in Veterinary Dermatology, Vol. 4.
Malden: Blackwell Science, 2000: 17887.
4. Bettenay S. Response to hyposensitization in 29 atopic
cats. In: Kwochka KW, Willemse T, von Tscharner C eds.
Advances in Veterinary Dermatology, Vol. 1. Oxford:
Butterworth Heinemann, 1998: 51718.
5. Halliwell REW. Efficacy of hyposensitization in feline
allergic diseases based upon results of in vitro testing
for allergen specific immunoglobulin E. Journal of
the American Animal Hospital Association 1997; 33:
2828.
6. Harvey SM, Laurie S, Hilton K et al. Safety of rush
immunotherapy to multiple aeroallergens in an adult
population. Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology
2004; 92: 41419.
7. Mueller RS, Bettenay S. Evaluation of the safety of
an abbreviated course of injections of allergen extracts
(rush immunotherapy) for the treatment of dogs with
atopic dermatitis. American Journal of Veterinary Research
2001; 62: 30710.
8. Mueller RS, Fieseler KV, Zabel S et al. Conventional
and rush immunotherapy in canine atopic dermatitis.
Veterinary Dermatology 2004; 15 (S): 4.

2005 European Society of Veterinary Dermatology, Veterinary Dermatology, 16, 324329

328

A. M. Trimmer et al.

9. Griffin CE, Hillier A. The ACVD task force on atopic

dermatitis: allergen specific immunotherapy. Veterinary
Immunology and Immunopathology 2001; 81: 36383.
10. Ponvert C, Scheinmann P. Vaccine allergy and pseudoallergy. European Journal of Dermatology 2003; 13: 5
10.
11. Bettenay S. Feline atopy. In: Bonagura JD ed. Kirks
Current Veterinary Therapy XIII, Small Animal Practice. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 2000: 564 9.
12. Griffin CE. In vivo versus in vitro testing for atopy. In:
Proceedings. Annual Members Meeting of the American
Academy of Veterinary Dermatology and the American
College of Veterinary Dermatology 1996: 12.
13. Austel M, Hensel P, Medleau L et al. Determination of
threshold concentrations of allergens in intradermal testing (IDT) in cats. In: Proceedings. Annual Members
Meeting of the American Academy of Veterinary
Dermatology and the American College of Veterinary
Dermatology 2003; 18: 195.
14. Gilbert S, Halliwell REW. Assessment of an ELISA for

the detection of allegen-specific IgE in cats experimentally sensitized against housedust mites. In: Kwochka
KW, Willemse T, von Tscharner C eds. Advances in
Veterinary Dermatology, Vol. 1. Oxford: Butterworth
Heinemann, 1998: 5201.
15. Kadoya M, Momoi Y, Iwasaki T. Comparison of intradermal test and antigen specific IgE test in 22 cases of
feline allergic dermatitis. Veterinary Dermatology 2004;
15 (S): 37.
16. Moneret-Vautrin DA, Halpern GM, Brignon JJ et al.
Food specific IgE antibodies: a comparative study of
AlaSTAT and Pharmacia RAST Phadebas CAP systems
in 49 patients with food allergies. Annals of Allergy 1993;
71: 10714.
17. Codner EC. Reactivity to intradermal injections of
extracts of house dust mite and flea antigen in normal
cats and cats suspected of being allergic. In: Proceedings.
Annual Members Meeting of the American Academy of
Veterinary Dermatology and the American College of
Veterinary Dermatology 1996; 12: 26.

Rsum Limmunthrapie rapide sest avre aussi sre que limmunothrapie clasique chez le chien. Limmunothrapie en rush na pas t dcrite chez le chat. Le but de cette tude pilote tait de dterminer un protocole
scuritaire dimmunothrapie en rush pour les chats atopiques. Quatre chats diagnostiqus comme atopiques par
lanamnse, lexamen clinique et lexclusion des autres diagnostics diffrentiels ont t inclus dans lessai. Les
allergnes ont t identifis par dosage srologique (VARL: Veterinary Allergy Reference Labs, Pasadena, CA).
Les chats ont t prmdiqus avec 1.5 mg de triamcinolone par voie orale 24 et 2 h avant la premire injection
et 10 mg dhydroxyzine PO 24, 12 et 2 h avant la premire injection. Un cathter a t mis en place avant la premire
injection. Les extraits allergniques (Greer Laboratories, Lenoir, North Carolina) ont t administrs par voie
sous cutane doses progressivement croissantes toutes les 30 minutes pendant 5 heures pour atteindre la dose
de maintenance de 15,000 pnus ml-1. Un examen clinique tait ralis toutes les 15 minutes. Deux chats ont montr un prurit modr et linjection suivante a t diffre de 30 minutes. Aucune modification grave na t
observe. Tous les quatre chats ont termin leur dsensibilisation rapide. Deux chats ont eu un gonflement dermique sur la peau du cou une semaine plus tard. Chez les quatre animaux, ce protocole est apparu sans risque
pour atteindre la dose de maintenance. Un chantilllon plus important de chats est ncessaire pour dterminer
lincidence des ractions secondaires et lefficacit de lASIT selon cette mthode dinduction.
Resumen La inmunoterapia rpida ha demostrado ser tan segura como la inmunoterapia convencional en perros con atopia. El uso de esta inmunoterapia en gatos no ha sido publicado hasta el momento. El propsito de
este estudio piloto fue determinar un protocolo seguro para inmunoterapia rpida en gatos atpicos. Cuatro gatos
con atopia diagnosticados mediante historia clnica, examen fsico y exclusin de los diagnosticos diferenciales
apropiados se incluyeron en este estudio. Los alergenos fueron identificados mediante prueba liquida inmunoenzimtica (VARL: Laboratorios Veterinarios de Referencia en Alergia, Pasadera, CA). Los gatos fueron previamente medicados con 1.5 mg de triamcinolona va oral 24 y 2 horas antes de la primera inyeccin, y con 10 mg
de hidroxicina va oral 24, 12 y dos horas previas a la primera inyeccin. Asmismo se coloc un catter intravenoso antes de la primera inyeccin. Los extractos de alergenos (Laboratorios Greer, Lenoir, North Carolina)
fueron administrados va subcutnea a dosis crecientes de unidades de nitrgeno proteico (pnu) cada 30 minutos
durante 5 horas, para mantener una dosis de 15,000 pnu/ml. Los signos vitales se evaluaron cada 15 minutos.
Dos gatos desarrollaron mnimo prurito, por lo cual la inyeccin siguiente se retras 30 minutos. No se
observaron cambios en los signos vitales de ninguno de los dos gatos, y tampoco se observo ms prurito. En todos
los gatos se complet con xito el protocolo rpido de inmunoterapia. Dos gatos desarrollaron hinchazn en la
piel del dorso del cuello una semana despus. En los cuatro gatos, este protocolo demostr ser un rgimen seguro
para alcanzar una terapia de mantenimiento. Un mayor nmero de gatos sera necesario para determinar la incidencia de reacciones adversas, as como para valorar xito de ASIT basado en este mtodo de induccin.
Zusammenfassung Bei caninen atopischen Patienten konnte gezeigt werden, dass Rush Immuntherapie
(Schnellsteigerung) ebenso sicher ist wie konventionelle Immuntherapie. Beim felinen atopischen Patienten
wurde Rush Immuntherapie bisher nicht dokumentiert. Das Ziel dieser Pilotstudie war es, ein sicheres Protokoll
fr Rush Immuntherapie bei felinen atopischen Patienten zu ermitteln. Vier atopische Katzen, diagnostiziert mittels
Anamnese, klinischer Untersuchung und Ausschluss von entsprechenden Differentialdiagnosen, wurden in die
Studie aufgenommen. Die Allergene wurden mittels Liquid Phase Immunoenzymatic Testing (VARL: Veterinary
Allergy Reference Labs, Pasadena, CA) identifiziert. Die Katzen erhielten eine Prmedikation per os mit 1.5 mg
2005 European Society of Veterinary Dermatology, Veterinary Dermatology, 16, 324 329

Feline RIT protocol: a pilot study

329

Triamcinolon 24 und 2 h, sowie mit 10 mg Hydroxyzin 24, 12 und 2 h vor der ersten Injektion. Ein intravenser
Katheter wurde vor der ersten Injektion gesetzt. Die Allergen Extrakte (Greer Laboratories, Lenoir, North Carolina)
wurden alle 30 Minuten in zunehmenden Protein Nitrogen Units (pnu) ber einen Zeitraum von 5 Stunden bis
zur Erhaltungsdosis von 15,000 pnus ml1 subkutan verabreicht. Die Vitalzeichen wurden alle 15 Minuten
beurteilt. Zwei Katzen entwickelten milden Juckreiz und die nchste Injektion wurde um 30 Minuten verzgert.
Bei keiner der Katzen wurden Vernderungen der Vitalzeichen bemerkt, es bestand auch kein weiterer Juckreiz.
Alle vier Katzen beendeten die Rush Immuntherapie erfolgreich. Bei zwei der Katzen enstand nach einer Woche
eine dermale Schwellung am dorsalen Nacken. Bei diesen vier Katzen stellte sich dieses Protokoll als sicheres
Dosierungsregime heraus, um die therapeutische Erhaltungsdosis zu erreichen. Eine grere Anzahl an felinen
Patienten ist notwendig, um das Auftreten von Nebenwirkungen zu eruieren und um den Erfolg der allergenspezifischen Immuntherapie (ASIT), die auf dieser Induktionsmethode beruht, zu verfolgen.

2005 European Society of Veterinary Dermatology, Veterinary Dermatology, 16, 324329